animaguy wrote:a simpler way of putting it is, mac os has to spend money paying employees to monitor 24/7 its security.

Linux does not.

Macs design must be complicated and held together at all times cause any breach of security will cut into its bottom line.

Linux does not.

Linux can be as simple and as complex as its purposes want to be with no concern for market share issues.

it depend. if you asked the question to the developer of the API they will certainly agreed with you. If you ask the question to application developer they gone says the opposite. That's the beauty of developing in API with OOP by people who know their stuff.

For example to make a notepad with build in support for English, Arabic, Japanese. If you do not include the dialog box for selecting the language, it will be less then 20 lines ...

I think it's still too early to say what will happen yet. Funnily enough I think small form factor devices such as tablets will eventually eat into the PC market with desktops remaining only at the high-end. Tablets have the advantage of being like a proper PC that you can take around anywhere. All your files would be in one place. Call me one of those crazy tablet people, but hear me out first.

First of all, I don't think tablets will take over the market overnight, and I think some OSes (*cough* Windows 8 *cough*) are trying to force this on us too quickly without any real thought to how this should happen. I believe that nature should take its course here.

There is one major hurdle to confront before I think small form factor devices can really take over. I simply don't think any OS is ready for this yet. We have the likes of Android and iOS that are built specifically for tablets and phones, but they don't function well as a PC interface. I guess Windows is heading in this direction too as Microsoft want to eventually phase out win32 in favour of winRT (unfortunately regressing when it comes to desktop use). I don't think that 'one interface to rule them all' is ever going to work.

An ideal OS in my mind would be one that is open and one that adapts to the different input devices that are plugged in. Let's say you want to use a tablet on the go (would be pointless otherwise ). You would get an interface suited for touchscreen. Everything would be fullscreen because it's a bit cumbersome to use a desktop paradigm on a small screen with touch. Of course, things like office applications won't adapt well to this, but when you use a device on the go, the most you want to do with an on-screen keyboard is simple note taking. Now, you bring the tablet back home and you want to do some serious productive stuff. A small touchscreen isn't going to cut it. So you plug in a proper keyboard, mouse and a large monitor. The OS adapts to that and the interface reverts to a more traditional desktop paradigm. Now you can use it as a proper PC. Perhaps to make that step easier, there could be some kind of docking station with the monitor, keyboard and mouse already plugged into it. All you would have to do is plug the tablet on top of that. Power users would probably want a proper desktop with a bit more horsepower, but for most people a tablet would be fine if it could do this imo.

Anyway whatever happens, I don't buy the idea of this whole 'post-PC' nonsense. The PC I believe is here to stay, and that includes a traditional desktop interface when needed. But that also includes smaller form factor devices too.

animaguy wrote:And what I find hilarious is Linux is far more powerful than What Mac and Microsoft have to offer cause their development is based on what sells versus what works.

Not exactly true. the development of the concept of WYSIWYG was a major selling factor in the editing industry. Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark express are still the tools of choices in the world of edition. And in the web edition market, Apple is a major player. The Mac look likes big toys, but the software for edition on this platform is the best.

Incorrect, WYSIWYG was a marketing development feature back when the world was UNIX, main-frames & terminals, and MS/Apple weren't even a twinkle in daddy's eyes. HP-Unix, BSD, Santa Cruz Operation, Xerox plus others were all battling for market-share and WYSIWYG was a feature on the top of the list. I know in 1979, Star Office on the Altos system which was either the first or next to it was not only non-terminal real computers connected in an ethernet network, but they had all the features the PC desktop still has today as in separate: keyboard, mouse, monitor, computer and yet we had communication via email or chat(forget what we called that) to any Xerox office on the planet. The big problem with publishing back then was most Unix systems could not display what was going to appear out of the printer. Xerox was trying to replace the typewriter with their Altos and Star-Office, and this was a huge thing back in the 1970's. IBM had their Selectric, Canon had the electric version with enough ram to correct a line and their were other companies that had huge workbench-size models that could store a whole page. HP, IBM and Xerox had networks and terminals with Xerox holding most of the patents, which even still today when you purchase an ethernet card a royalty fee and the mac address still go to/come from Xerox. Because of some type of patent issue with Xerox, MS turned the monitor sideways and still to this day, you cannot work on a page of text and be able to see it at the same time except on really large monitors. Xerox had the monitor vertical, so instead of aspect ratio being 4:3, it was 3:4 and by design, it would display an entire page of a document WYSIWYG in Black on White or White on Black.

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” - Friedrich Nietzsche